Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> Your definition of XXXX suggests that there's a one-to-one
> correspondence between URLs and XXXXs, so why not treat them as
Incorrect. Many URIs can identify the same XXXX.
> isomorphic? Any reference to an XXXX can be reworded to refer to a
> URL instead. The word "resource" can then be used in more or less its
> normal English meaning, to talk about YYYYs. I think this is roughly
> what the spec has done. This usage might not accord with some other
"some other"? Sorry, this is getting ridiculous.
> specs, but it ends up being completely precise and unambiguous taken
> by itself. It also uses less standards jargon, and more practical
> terms that anyone should understand, and at least that is a good
> thing.
If that is a good thing, why aren't we changing stuff like:
> A DOCTYPE must consist of the following characters, in this order:
>
> 1. A U+003C LESS-THAN SIGN (<) character.
> 2. A U+0021 EXCLAMATION MARK (!) character.
> 3. A string that is an ASCII case-insensitive match for the string "DOCTYPE".
> 4. One or more space characters.
> 5. A string that is an ASCII case-insensitive match for the string "HTML".
> 6. Optionally, a DOCTYPE legacy string (defined below).
> 7. Zero or more space characters.
> 8. A U+003E GREATER-THAN SIGN (>) character.
???
BR, Julian